JOURNALIST: Former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull joins me now. Just get your response to that because of course what we want to know is what happens when Bridge Colby, the Under Secretary of Defense, does his 30 day review. He's already expressed doubts about AUKUS. What happens at the end of that? What do you think happens at the end of that review?
MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well, I want to pick up a couple of things Richard said. Richard Marles said that the rate of production of Virginia class submarines is increasing. That's not true. The latest numbers given to the Congress by the Navy on the 11th of March this year was that the rate of production is 1.1 per annum. They need to get to 2 by 2028 to be able to meet their own requirements, and to 2.33 to meet their own plus Australia's. And they have not been able to lift production rates despite the expenditure of over $10 billion over the last six or seven years. So they've got a real problem there. So with great respect to Richard, I'm sure he's been misinformed, what he said is not right.
Now in terms of Bridge Colby, Bridge’s point that he's made previously is simply this, that the legislation clearly states that no submarine can be transferred to Australia unless the President certifies that it will not degrade the undersea capabilities of the US Navy.They're short of submarines today. They're producing about half as many as they need to produce for their own needs. The competitive threat from China is increasing and there is a risk of war imminently, according to Hegseth, over Taiwan. Now in that environment, all Colby has said is really can we really spare these boats? And I think that he will conclude in the review that that question is either answered in the negative, they can't spare them, or they certainly won't be saying they can.
JOURNALIST: So what happens if it is answered in the negative, because if your facts about the production line in the US are correct and Richard Marles are incorrect…
MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well they are correct. According to the US Navy, and the US Navy should know, but there it's their evidence, evidence of 11th of March
JOURNALIST: Presumably Bridge Colby knows that already.
MALCOLM TURNBULL: I’m sure he does.
JOURNALIST: So we know he knows that already that there are problems with US production, so what happens at the end of this? Is this a death knell for AUKUS? It's a very big question.
MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well it's not a death knell for AUKUS. We've got to be clear, the United States can comply with the AUKUS agreement and not give us any subs. It's a term of the deal. You know, it's something that Richard's government, Morrison's government went into this deal on the basis that the American’s obligation to transfer submarines was subject to some very heavy conditions, and which we've just discussed. So AUKUS can continue. The Americans certainly would expect us to continue providing a new submarine base for them in Perth, a new dockyard to maintain their submarines, they'd love to keep getting our brightest sailors serving on their boats. I'm sure they'd like to continue receiving the $3 billion which Richard's given them the first deposit of. But as to whether we get any submarines, that will be judged purely and solely in accordance with their legislation in America's interest. And it is ‘America First’. That's the zeitgeist.
JOURNALIST: And, you know, it may be called America First now, but I'm not sure who's making the argument that it was ever anything other than America First.
MALCOLM TURNBULL: That's a broader discussion point, that Trump's done us a favour, that he's basically just being very honest in the sense he's saying: I'm putting America's interests first, America's interest alone first, and we've got to recognize that. So it's not a question of Trump reneging on a deal or double crossing us. We've done a deal, which that's why I say it's a really dumb deal. I mean, Trump will love this deal. He'll just want to be able to do some more dumb deals with people like us with a lot of money.
JOURNALIST: Let me just come back to some of the other things that were said today because as I said at the beginning, this story in the Financial Times did set the hairs running. It brought Scott Morrison back. Now he is saying, and said this today, that the problem with the deal that existed before which I didn't say to the viewers at the beginning, which was your deal…
MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well it was the government’s deal…
JOURNALIST: Which was your government’s deal. Under your government, the Turnbull Government, he said today that the subs you were going to buy would have been obsolete before they got wet. I think he said they weren't going to turn up until 2038. So let's clear that up.
MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well both of those are untrue. The first submarine would have been, it was planned to be, ready and in the water in 2032. So that's the first thing. As far as them being obsolete, the attack class submarines were the latest based on the latest French nuclear powered submarine. They were going to have the Lockheed Martin Combat Management system, which is the same as the Virginia class submarines have. So the brains of the boat would have been the same as those on the Virginias. And I mean, if Scott's trying to say that conventional propulsion as opposed to nuclear propulsion is obsolete, well there are new submarines being built all around the world that are not nuclear powered. So I think this was…both those statements he made were untrue.
JOURNALIST: There's one other point he made today that I would like to get you to address, which is the broader point about us relying on the United States. He said that critics of this arrangement, that is the AUKUS arrangement, are delusional to suggest there is another power that can provide our security. Is that your argument?
MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well, I'm not making that argument at all. See what Scott is doing is setting up a strawman. I'm simply making the point that we have a submarine deal which is very likely to end up with us having no submarines and that we've got to start acknowledging that risk, it is a real recognised risk in the deal, and plan for an alternative. That may be getting submarines from somewhere else, it may be buying long range strike capabilities, long range bombers and so forth. All of this is being canvassed in America and in the American Congress, but we're not allowed to talk about it here otherwise you get accused of wanting to abandon the American alliance. It's not Australia that's walking away from the United States. The United States is pulling away from its allies. But we have to live in the real world. The people that are deluded are the ones that are ignoring the real risks in this deal, and the fact that we should have, responsibly, a plan B.
JOURNALIST: The driving question here really is around timeline. That's the reason for the questions to Richard Marles. It's obviously going to be part of Bridge Colby's inquiry. Is it too late for Australia to acquire a submarine fleet outside of AUKUS? Can you start again?
MALCOLM TURNBULL: We're certainly leaving it very late. And I think it may be that it is too late. Maybe that we end up with no submarines. That may be Scott's great achievement, that we'll end up with no submarines. But let's assume that's the worst case. In that case, what we should be doing, and this is certainly what's being canvassed by the Americans, we should be investing in alternatives. We could do the base, do the maintenance, leave the submarining to the Americans, and invest in other military capabilities that give us the ability to defend ourselves over a long range - long range missiles, long range bombers - those capabilities we could acquire. But unless we start planning for a Plan B, we will end up with nothing. We'll have a Plan A that hasn't come to fruition, and because we don't want to admit that that may not work out, we'll have no Plan B, and we end up precisely with nothing at all. And that's just reckless government.
WATCH THE VIDEO HERE ON IVIEW https://iview.abc.net.au/video/NC2501H092S00
Sorry comments are closed.